None of Us Who Marched on Feb 15 2003 Will Ever Forget It

feb15-03-crowd2

None of us who marched on February 15 2003 will ever forget the feelings of hope, excitement, and human solidarity we experienced as part of the 15 million people who came out on this day all over the world, united in opposition to the then looming war in Iraq in an international day of protest that was and will likely remain unparalleled in history.

No doubt many of us still consider the weeks leading up to February 15 – weeks which comprised packed organizing meetings, the tireless leafleting of shopping malls, workplaces, and communities, street stalls and speeches, the making of placards, writing and sending out press releases, and various other activities associated with building the demonstration – as among the most important, meaningful, and vital we have ever had.

The thing that struck many of us most at the time, and likely still does ten years on, is how this once in a generation global antiwar movement rubbished completely the lie that humanity is divided along national, ethnic, religious, gender, or any other line. Indeed perhaps the most important achievement of this historic day was the affirmation that humanity knows no borders, nation, ethnicity, race, or religion, and that what unites us is far more powerful than anything that could possibly divide us.

Looking back now February 15 still represents a beacon of hope for what we can become. Yes, the war was unleashed regardless, and no one who was involved in the antiwar movement takes comfort from being able to say in hindsight that, in the inimitable words of George Galloway, everything we said was right and everything they said was wrong. We knew the war would be a disaster, certainly for the Iraqi people, but also for us living in the West. The polarization that occurred in our own societies – the rise and spread of Islamophobia and its inevitable response in the shape of the radicalisation of many young Muslims – was mirrored in the attacks on civil liberties and the deepening of social and economic injustice.

Imperialist wars abroad are waged from a foundation of social and economic injustice at home, and any Iraqi would have been justified in concluding that that the financial and economic crisis that engulfed the West a few years later was poetic justice for the monumental crime against humanity that ‘we’ unleashed on them back in 2003, a people whose only crime, despite the monument to lies which our leaders erected to justify the war, was that their country sits on a sea of oil in a region of the world whose importance to the outrageous greed and level of consumption in the West has long been self evident.

The injustice of a war unleashed on a tissue of lies has been compounded for many by the fact that its key architects, George Bush and Tony Blair, rather than being held accountable, have prospered in the years since. Bush now lives a life of comfort as an ex-President on his Crawford, Texas ranch, while Blair has enriched himself with a second career as an international speaker, adviser to various multinational corporations, and various other enterprises around the world.

Faith in conventional politics, manifesting in lower and lower voter turnouts, was shattered for many who marched on that historic day in 2003. In its place came cynicism – a cynicism that has never ceased. This particular casualty of the war is made more profound by the fact that leading up to the demonstration, and on the day itself, idealism and optimism succeeded in raising our expectations to new heights of possibility. Many of us believed it marked the beginning of something when in fact it marked the end of something. You might say we were naive, blinded by an irrational belief in the willingness of our leaders to respond to the collective moral suasion of millions of people around the world.

But then again, were we? Were we naive? Perhaps it is more the case that many of us were unable to comprehend that the determination of those in power to wage war had rendered them impervious to reason, their humanity blinded by the lust for conquest, which in the tradition of Orwellian language long mastered by imperialists and colonialists they claimed was liberation.

And what a liberation it proved. Up to a million dead, millions more maimed, traumatised and made refugees in both the war and ensuing occupation, one that unleashed a level of sectarian violence that will likely take generations to overcome – if ever at all. A country that once boasted the most advanced infrastructure in the Arab world was reduced to chaos and carnage. Ten years on it is still broken.

This was and is their notion of liberation.

Every one of the millions who took to the streets on February 15 2003 can take pride in the fact that they stood for a vision of peace and humanity over one of war and conquest.

The antiwar movement told the truth on that historic day. It is a truth that continues to resonate and will never die. The crimes of those who unleashed this war will follow them to the grave. However, before that day comes, they should also follow them into the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

It was Malcolm X who said that if you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything. On February 15 2003 15 million people stood for something that can never be denied, no matter how long it takes to achieve. That something is justice.

 

 

 

Iraq: Retreat from Baghdad

Guardian

Anyone who wants to know what a US withdrawal from Afghanistan looks like would do well to study the carefully choreographed events earlier in the week in Washington and in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, yesterday. The war was over, Barack Obama repeatedly declared. The last Americans troops would leave behind “a solid, stable, representative” Iraq. The greatest fighting force in the world was leaving Iraq with its head held high. And this from the man who once declared the war dumb. A nine-year war that sits comfortably alongside the greatest military blunders in history – the charge of the Light Brigade, the Dieppe Raid, Pearl Harbour, the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Vietnam – was in this president’s view being brought to a successful, honourable conclusion.

Even with an election campaign in full flow, the chasm that opened up between words in Fort Bragg and one day in the life of Iraq was unbridgeable. Wednesday December 14 was relatively quiet: two car bombs in Tal Afar, killing three and wounding 35; bombings and shootings in Kirkuk, Mosul, Baghdad. A war that is over? Or take the decision on Monday of Diyala provincial council to declare itself independent from central government. Or take the answer that the prime minister Nouri al-Maliki gave last week when asked to describe who he thought he was – first a Shia, second an Iraqi, third an arab, and fourth a member of the Dawa party. What chance for a nation state, if its prime minister places his confessional identity above his national one? Can any of the above be deemed solid, stable or representative?

That Mr Obama stole Republican clothes in his address to paratroopers in Fort Bragg, there can be little doubt. National security, with its muscular approach to foreign policy, is their bag. But it has been whisked away from them by the Democratic president who ordered the surge in Afghanistan, who sent the Seals team in to kill Osama bin Laden, who failed to close Guantanamo, who now fulfills a campaign pledge to bring all the troops home from Iraq. The commander in chief of the most powerful army in the world is also a world leader, and it is to the Middle East that a US leader also has to speak. To this audience, and specifically US allies in the region, the day the last combat soldier crosses the desert at the end of the year will indeed be “an extraordinary milestone” but not the one a president facing reelection would be willing to recognise. That day will indeed look like the start of a long march home. The day when America stopped being a policy maker in the Middle East, but became instead a policy taker.

Is the Iraq Mr Obama leaves behind going to be a strategic ally of the US? Hardly. Not only does Iran have significant sway over the Shia political elite which holds the virtual monopoly of power in this country. But of all the rival power centres within Iran, it is the darkest of them that has the strongest stake in its neighbour. Members of Iraq’s cabinet have beaten a well worn path to the door of Qassem Suleimani, the commander of the Quds force, the external operations wing of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. The British embassy compounds in Tehran know him well. He ordered their sacking. The future partners of an independent Iraq are Iran and Turkey. The US comes a distant third.

Nor have the jihadi forums, which formed the centre of the insurgency, fallen silent. They are buzzing with calls to send fighters into Syria to help the Sunni Muslim uprising against the Shia overlord regime of Bashar al-Assad. The Salafists are up and running again. The Awakening or Sons of Iraq who played a seminal role in turning the tide against Al-Qaida are leaving Iraq, betrayed by a prime minister who has done his best to suppress them. The scars of this grand folly will be born by generations to come. The fight for the destiny of the land of the Arabs is being won, but not by America.

Who Stole Iraq’s Money?

From Reuters, there might be some food for thought here for the Libyan rebels

Iraq’s parliament is chasing about $17 billion of Iraqi oil money it says was stolen after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and has asked the United Nations for help to track it down.

The missing money was shipped to Iraq from the United States to help with reconstruction after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

In a letter to the U.N. office in Baghdad last month, parliament’s Integrity Committee asked for help to find and recover the oil money taken from the Development Fund of Iraq (DFI) in 2004 and lost in the chaos that followed the invasion.

“All indications are that the institutions of the United States of America committed financial corruption by stealing the money of the Iraqi people, which was allocated to develop Iraq, (and) that it was about $17 billion,” said the letter sent to the U.N. with a 50-page report.

The committee called the disappearance of the money a “financial crime” but said U.N. Security Council resolutions prevent Iraq from making a claim against the United States.

“Our committee decided to send this issue to you … to look into it and restore the stolen money,” said the letter, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.

U.N. officials were not immediately available for comment.

SALARIES, PENSIONS

The DFI was established in 2003 at the request of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the U.S. body headed by Paul Bremer that governed Iraq after the invasion. The fund was to be used to pay the salaries and pensions of Iraqi government workers and for reconstruction projects.

In 2004, the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush flew billions of dollars in cash into Iraq. The money came from the sale of Iraqi oil, surplus funds from the U.N. oil-for-food program and seized Iraqi assets.

Last July, an audit report from the U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) said the U.S. Department of Defense was unable to account properly for $8.7 billion of Iraqi oil and gas money after the 2003 invasion.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Al Jazeera television on Sunday: “No one on the Iraqi side was controlling the work of Paul Bremer at that time. So I think the administration of the United States needs to give the answers for where and how this (money) was being used.

“We do understand that Iraqis are also engaged in such lack of transparency and corruption related to the Paul Bremer time in Iraq,” he added.

Osama al-Nujaifi, Iraq’s parliament speaker, said a committee was investigating what happened to some $20 billion of DFI money.

“Some of these funds were spent and are documented. But some do not have such documents,” he said. “We as a parliament are working together with the Iraqi Board of Supreme Audits and with coordination of SIGIR to know where this money ended up.”

The appeal to the United Nations could help Iraq recover its money by putting its case before the international community, said Bahaa al-Araji, the head of the Integrity Committee.

“We cannot sue the Americans. Laws do not allow us to do that. All we want is to get this issue to the U.N.,” Araji said. “If this works, it will open the way for Iraq to restore its stolen money.”

In 2003, the CPA issued an order granting immunity to U.S. personnel and institutions working in Iraq.

Support Iraqi Protests

NEWSLETTER OF THE BRUSSELLS TRIBUNALSPECIAL EDITION – February 20, 2011
Support Iraqi protests! UNDERSIGNED CALL UPON YOU TO SIGN THIS PETITION
While millions across the world watched live 18 days of dramatic revolution that ousted the US-allied torture-friendly regime of Hosni Mubarak, no one is offered live feed from Iraq of its people’s uprising against an enemy much worse.

And while President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are being lauded for their supposed support for Egyptian democracy, no one is asking the key question Washington can’t answer: When will members of this US administration and the three previous face trial for crimes against humanity in Iraq?

Despite US hypocrisy, nothing will prevent the collapse of US geostrategic goals in the Arab region. It is not by direct confrontation that this is happening, nor by ideology. The interests of the people are opposed to the model of underdevelopment Washington and allies propose and police.

The year of revolutions
Across the Arab world, 2011 appears set to be remembered as the “year of revolutions”. In Iraq, ravaged by eight years of US occupation, plunder, destruction and death, protests have burst forth in Baghdad, Kut, Basra, Kirkuk, Ramadi, Sulaymaniyah and tens of other locations. As usual, the people face live fire.

We declare our solidarity with the people of Iraq in protest. We declare our solidarity with the martyrs of the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, and all martyrs of Arab uprisings. We put Washington on notice that it is your policies that are being defeated, and it is your alliances that are falling apart.

The region is witness to a rolling tide of Arab renaissance, led by the aspirations of the Arab youth. No injustice will be spared criticism. No lie will remain unexposed.

Support Iraqi protests!
Stand in support of the Iraqi people in their struggle against state terrorism and repression, generalised corruption, a falsified political process and its state apparatus, generalised lack and collapse of public services, poverty and unemployment, systematic abuse of human rights by the government and its militias, illegal contracts, treaties and a constitution imposed under occupation, and foreign plans to destroy Iraqi culture, economy and unity.

Stand in support of the Iraqi people’s struggle for freedom, democracy, dignity, unity and social justice.

Stand in support of the Iraqi people in their uprising, and in solidarity with all Arabs at this dawn of a new era!

The game is over! We demand that Maliki’s government leave without shedding the blood of innocent Iraqis on 25 February, Iraq’s “Day of Peaceful Anger”.

We demand that other states withdraw support from Maliki and not provide cover for a government bloodbath.

We are certain the people of Iraq will achieve victory, like their Tunisian and Egyptian brothers and sisters.


Dr Ian Douglas, member of the BRussells Tribunal Executive Committee and coordinator of the International Initiative to Prosecute US genocide in Iraq – UK/Egypt
Abdul Ilah Albayaty, political analyst and activist, member of the BRussells Tribunal Executive Committee and the International Initiative to Prosecute US genocide in Iraq – France/Iraq
Hana Al Bayaty, political analyst and activist, member of the BRussells Tribunal Executive Committee and the International Initiative to Prosecute US genocide in Iraq, – France/Iraq
Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, President Perdana Global Peace Foundation – Malaysia
Denis Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary General & United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq 1997-98 – Ireland
Prof Dr Lieven De Cauter, philosopher, K.U. Leuven / Rits, initiator of the BRussells Tribunal – Belgium
Dr Curtis F J Doebbler, international human rights lawyer – USA/Palestine
Felicity Arbuthnot, journalist – UK 
Paola Manduca, professor of genetics DIBIO, University of Genoa – Italy
Lamis Andoni, journalist – Palestine
Serene Assir, writer/journalist – Lebanon/Spain
Dirk Adriaensens, member of the BRussells Tribunal Executive Committee, coordinator SOS Iraq – Belgium
Matthias Chang, law specialist, Perdana Global Peace Foundation and the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War – Malaysia
Cynthia McKinney, Green Party US Presidential Candidate – USA
Dr Zulaiha Ismail, Perdana Global Peace Foundation – Malaysia
Sigyn Meder, member of the Iraqi Solidarity Association in Stockholm – Sweden
Mike Powers, member of the Iraqi Solidarity Association in Stockholm – Sweden
Perdana Global Peace Foundation
Ad-Hoc Committee for Justice for Iraq
Take action!

1. Endorse this statement by writing here (hanaalbayaty@gmail.com).

2. There is a virtual blackout on the uprising in Iraq in the Western media. Take initiative and demand that news outlets put Iraq back on the agenda where you are.

3. For updated information on the uprising in Iraq follow here (Arabic) and here (English).

USGENOCIDE

PERDANA

THE BRUSSELLS TRIBUNAL

Click here to unsubscribe


John Wight on Blair’s Return to Chilcot

img-cs-tony-blair_144237221647.jpg

The nation’s favourite warmonger Tony Blair returns to our screens this Friday in his second appearance in front of the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War.

It seems the establishment goons (sorry, Privy Counsellors) charged with asking questions about the decision to go to war and thereafter its prosecution and aftermath – questions it should be borne in mind which carry no legal weight – have identified ‘inconsistencies’ in Blair’s original testimony. 

More specifically the former prime minister’s original testimony was contradicted by that given by former attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, and former head of MI6, Sir John Scarlett, who was responsible for overseeing the compilation of the so-called and now infamous intelligence dossier that was a key component in making the case for war to Parliament.

Chilcot began in the summer of 2009 at the instigation of then Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It was only after a subsequent outcry in the media that Brown gave way and allowed proceedings to be carried out in public. Since then a veritable parade of witnesses have appeared, the vast majority assorted ex-government flunkies, civil servants and bureaucrats, along with the usual suspects whose names and reputations will forever be associated with Iraq. Indeed, how could it be otherwise given that it was one of the most egregious and overt imperialist military adventures ever undertaken by any western country, one that has impacted on society at home in the shape of increased racial, ethnic and religious tensions, attacks on civil liberties and an increasingly corrupt body politic?

But back to Blair and it’s interesting to chart his post-prime ministerial rise as a member of the world’s super-rich, long his favoured demographic, which has seen him command outrageous fees for public speaking engagements in front of various corporate audiences, presumably pontificating on subjects such as the virtues of humanitarian intervention, the role of faith in politics, peace in the 21st century, and the need to bomb the fuck out of Iran.

At the same time as his multiple bank accounts and offshore registered investments and business interests have exploded with lucre, the decay afflicting the man has been self evident in an increasingly withered and skeletol physical appearance. Rather than the respected and beloved Churchillian figure he aspired to be, standing up to tyranny and injustice in the name of freedom and democracy, Tony Blair will go to his grave knowing that outside of the ranks of his family, phalanx of bodyguards and corporate friends, he is universally reviled. Imperialist that he certainly was, Churchill still at least managed to get one ‘good war’ under his belt to salvage his legacy. Blair on the other hand has only a mountain of dead bodies and the subversion and violation of international law to define his.

Like any loyal and eager to please satrap, he hitched his government and the country to US geopolitical and strategic interests post 9/11, exploiting a parliament which outdid itself in pusillanimity in order to do so.

But it is not just Iraq that Tony Blair will be remembered for. He will also go down alongside Ramsay McDonald as the most right wing, anti trade union, anti working class leader in the history of the Labour Party. Indeed, the amputation of the Labour Party’s founding ethos was performed by Blair with the skill and precision of a surgeon. Where former Labour leader Neil ‘Lord’ Kinnock took tentative steps in a rightward direction, Blair sprinted headlong to jump on the bus marked Thatcherism when it came to his embrace of the free market and the City. Piecemeal reforms were parcelled out to the poor and low paid during the boom years – years in which the richest layer of society saw their wealth go up exponentially while wages for the majority went down in real terms, offset by the easy availability of personal credit.

Meritocracy replaced solidarity as the core value of Labour, along with the importation of that old American chestnut of social mobility to justify crippling inequality. Blair’s adherence to to that Clintonite rightward shift doctrine of social democracy otherwise known as triangulation, turned Britain into a free market paradise for billionaires, corporate executives and financial institutions. Blair’s particular genius was in the presentation, utilising his evident talents as a PR man to sell the process as progressive politics.

On his previous appearance in front of Chilcot just over a year ago, arriving and exiting by the back door as befits a man of the people, Blair exerted himself in his attempt to get the British public to finally understand the torment and moral turmoil he’s suffered repeatedly during a tortuous process of introspection and self reflection over his decision to go to war. However in the end, he averred, he would do it all over again and has no regrets. It’s lonely being me, he seemed to be saying last time, and, look, I did it all for you.

Though his later autobiography wasn’t titled Mein Kampf, it should have been judging by its contents. A cliché-ridden manifesto of disdain for the Labour Party, trade unions, collectivism and social and economic justice, wherein words such as enterprise, aspiration, security and dynamism dominate, this is what passed as the autobiography of a Labour prime minister. Inevitably it became a bestseller, though Blair himself was unable to sell personally it as the public opprobrium he was forced to endure at just two book signings forced him to retreat back into his bubble of self delusion.

Life for the former prime minister now appears to consist of flying across the world in a private jet to attend speaking engagements or to give international banks, financial institutions and oil companies the benefit of his advice, all for a hefty fee. He has also managed to accrue more than a few palatial residences since his time in office, and was even minded to accept the role or to be more accurate non-role of Middle East Peace Envoy; surely an abuse of Orwellian language if ever there was one.

So this Friday Tony Blair will be popping up again in central London to face more questions on Iraq. In time honoured fashion, Stop the War are planning a welcoming committee. The details can be found here.

Update: The scandal deepens. Gus O’Donnell, head of the civil service, has blocked a request by the Chilcot Inquiry for the release of private memos between Blair and the White House as part of their deliberations. It is thought that one of the memos in question contains a pledge from Tony Blair to George Bush back in 2002 that Britain would join any military action taken by the US against Iraq. Sir John Chilcot has come out publicly criticising the decision to block his request for the release of these memos and should be commended for doing so. Gus O’Donnell on the other hand has only succeeded in undermining his own position in vetoing the right of the public to know the truth about the lead up to the war. The families of the British troops who’ve been killed and maimed deserve better, as do the Iraqi people, whose suffering should take priority over British establishment sensitivities at making public the private correspondence between a British Prime Minister and US President.

Brussels Tribunal Statement on Iraq

 PARTITION BY CENSUS
We, the undersigned, defending the right of Iraq to independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, rejecting the attempts of Iraqi puppets promoted by the US occupation to trade the national rights of Iraqis and to institutionalise via census the criminal demographic engineering they have pursued by force, declare that:
From the first day of the US-UK occupation of Iraq, the occupation began to undertake a series of measures, directly or through its local allies, to destroy Iraq as a state and a nation and to partition it along ethnic and sectarian lines.

Today, the puppet government of the occupation and its Kurdish partners are trying to hold a population census in Kirkuk province whose aim is to give a permanent legal character to the criminal social engineering, ethnic cleansing and demographic changes that have been implemented under occupation.[1] This could unleash a full blown civil war across Iraq, and potentially lead to its partition and a consequent regional war.

In addition to the death of more than one million Iraqis, the ethnic cleansing and other means pursued by the United States, United Kingdom and their allies in order to implement the process of partitioning Iraq, in its cities and regions, have caused the forced migration of 2.5 million Iraqis out of Iraq and the forced displacement of 2.5 million others from their homes inside Iraq. Click to continue reading

Memories Revisited

AlKhari Main

paintings by Ahmad Alkarkhi
at the Jerusalem Fund Gallery, Washington DC

September 17-October 3, 2010

opening reception to meet the artist
Friday, September 17, 6:00—8:00 p.m.

Memories Revisited, Ahmad Alkarkhi’s new exhibition at the Jerusalem Fund Gallery, showcases his intensely worked abstract expressionist paintings. Hot colors, dense brushstrokes and a pentimento of architectural and calligraphic references reflect his vivid memories of the Iraq he was forced to flee. These new paintings invoke strong feelings of beauty and loss, while providing a passage to the new reality of his life as a painter in the United States.

Highly successful in his native Iraq, Alkarkhi and his family were forced to flee to Syria. His successful exhibitions at the Free Hand Gallery in Damascus sustained him until he was able to acquire refugee status in the U.S. in 2009.

2425 Virginia Ave. NW / Washington DC 20037 / 202-338-1958
Metro: Foggy Bottom

Take Your Blood Money and Shove It Mr Blair

The news that Tony Blair is to donate his multi million pound advance and all proceeds from his autobiography to the Royal British Legion merely adds insult to the devastation his policies have contributed to in Iraq. No matter how much money he spends attempting to burnish his now tattered reputation, his lasting legacy to humanity is embodied in the picture below.

The crimes he committed will follow him to the grave. However, if there is any justice in this world, let us look forward to the day when they will also follow him into the dock at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

bloodied_iraq_child.jpg

Blix States That Iraq War Was Illegal

hansblixap1203_228×241.jpg

BBC News

The UN’s former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said it is his “firm view” that the Iraq war was illegal.

Hans Blix: “They should have drawn the conclusion that their sources were poor”

Dr Blix told the Iraq inquiry the UK had sought to go down the “UN route” to deal with Saddam Hussein but failed.

Ex-Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, who advised the war was lawful on the basis of existing UN resolutions, “wriggled about” in his arguments, he suggested.

Dr Blix said his team of inspectors had visited 500 sites but found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

As head of the UN’s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) between 1999 and 2003, Dr Blix was a key figure in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion as he sought to determine the extent of Saddam’s weapons programme.

No smoking gun

Asked about the inspections he oversaw between November 2002 and 18 March 2003 – when his team was forced to pull out of Iraq on the eve of the war – he said he was “looking for smoking guns” but did not find any.

While his team discovered prohibited items such as missiles beyond the permitted range, missile engines and a stash of undeclared documents, he said these were “fragments” and not “very important” in the bigger picture.

“We carried out about six inspections per day over a long period of time.

“All in all, we carried out about 700 inspections at different 500 sites and, in no case, did we find any weapons of mass destruction.”

Although Iraq failed to comply with some of its disarmament obligations, he added it “was very hard for them to declare any weapons when they did not have any”.

Legal explanation

He criticised decisions that led to the war, saying existing UN resolutions on Iraq did not contain the authority needed, contrary to the case put by the UK government.

“Some people maintain that Iraq was legal. I am, of the firm view, that it was an illegal war.

“Eventually they had to come with, I think, a very constrained legal explanation,” he said. “You see how Lord Goldsmith wriggled about and how he, himself, very much doubted it was adequate.”

Lord Goldsmith has acknowledged his views on the necessity of a further UN resolution mandating military action changed in the months before the invasion and that the concluded military action was justified on the basis of Iraq breaching disarmament obligations dating back to 1991.

But Dr Blix said most international lawyers believed these arguments would not stand up at an international tribunal.

“Some people maintain that Iraq was legal. I am of the firm view that it was an illegal war. There can be cases where it is doubtful, maybe it was permissible to go to war, but Iraq was, in my view, not one of those.”

He said he agreed with France and Russia, who argued that further UN authorisation was needed for military action.

“It was clear that a second resolution was required,” he said.

In the run-up to war, he said the US government was “high on” the idea of pre-emptive military action as a solution to international crises.

“They thought they could get away with it and therefore it was desirable to do so.”

Judgement questioned

While he believed Iraq “unilaterally” destroyed its weapons of mass destruction after the 1991 Gulf War, Dr Blix said he never “excluded” the prospect that it had begun to revive some form of chemical and biological capabilities.

At the age of 82, Hans Blix retains considerable stamina.

He came out of retirement a decade ago to lead the ultimately futile search for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

On Tuesday, he gave evidence to the Iraq inquiry for three hours, before heading off to conduct a round of TV interviews.

The inquiry panel wanted to know what this mild-mannered former Swedish diplomat had made of Saddam Hussein’s behaviour.

“I never met him”, replied Dr Blix, “but I saw him as someone who wanted to be like Emperor Nebuchadnezzar…. utterly ruthless…. and he misjudged it at the end”.

Dr Blix trod a neutral path during the build-up to the Iraq conflict, but, in his evidence, he repeated much of what he has said on different occasions since 2003.

Crucially, he had serious doubts about the intelligence that lay behind the move to go to war.
In September 2002, he said he told Tony Blair privately that he believed Iraq “retained” some WMD, noting CIA reports that Iraq may hold some anthrax.

However, he said he began to become suspicious of US intelligence on Iraq following claims in late 2002 that Iraq had purchased raw uranium from Niger, which he always said he thought was flawed.

Since the war, Dr Blix has accused the UK and US of “over-interpreting” intelligence on weapons to bolster the case for war but he said the government’s controversial September 2002 dossier on Iraqi weapons seemed “plausible” at the time.

He stressed that Tony Blair never put any “pressure” on him over his search for weapons in Iraq and did not question that the prime minister and President Bush believed in “good faith” that Iraq was a serious threat.

“I certainly felt that he [Tony Blair] was absolutely sincere in his belief.

“What I question was the good judgement, particularly of President Bush but also in Tony Blair’s judgement.”

Inspection timetable

Critics of the war believe that had inspectors been allowed to continue their work they would have proved beyond doubt that Iraq did not have active weapons of mass destruction capability – as was discovered after the invasion.

Dr Blix said the military momentum towards the invasion – which he said was “almost unstoppable” by early March – did not “permit” more inspections and the UK was a “prisoner on this train”.

If he had been able to conduct more inspections, he said he believed they would have begun to “undermine” US-UK intelligence on Iraq’s alleged weapons and made the basis for the invasion harder.

The US and UK have always maintained that Saddam Hussein failed to co-operate fully with the inspections process and was continuing to breach UN disarmament resolutions dating back to 1991.

In his evidence in January, former foreign secretary Jack Straw said the regime had only started complying in the final period before the invasion “because a very large military force was at their gates”.

The inquiry, headed by Sir John Chilcot, is coming towards the end of its public hearings, with a report expected to be published around the end of the year.

The War on Iraq Was Wrong

from the Guardian:

Ed Miliband was living in the US and was not yet an MP at the time. “I was pretty clear at the time that I thought there needs to be more due process here,” he said.

“As we all know, the basis for going to war was on the basis of Saddam’s threat in terms of weapons of mass destruction and therefore that is why I felt the weapons inspectors should have been given more time to find out whether he had those weapons, and Hans Blix – the head of the UN weapons inspectorate – was saying that he wanted to be given more time. The basis for going to war was the threat that he posed.

“The combination of not giving the weapons inspectors more time, and then the weapons not being found, I think for a lot of people it led to a catastrophic loss of trust for us, and we do need to draw a line under it.”

From the Telegraph‘s inteview with Ed Balls:

His greatest criticism is reserved for the Iraq war, which still saps Labour support. Mr Balls today becomes the first former Cabinet minister unequivocally to condemn the invasion, claiming the public were misled by “devices and tactics”.

“People always felt as if the decision had been made and they were being informed after the fact.” Though not yet elected as an MP, Mr Balls – as Mr Brown’s adviser – was party to top level discussions after attempts to get a second UN Security Council resolution failed.

“I was in the room when a decision was taken that we would say it was that dastardly Frenchman, Jacques Chirac, who had scuppered it. It wasn’t really true, you know. I said to Gordon: ‘I know why you’re doing this, but you’ll regret it’. France is a very important relationship for us.”

Although Mr Balls concedes that, had he been an MP at the time, he would have voted for the war on the basis of the facts provided, he now concedes that not only was the information wrong but the war unjustified.

“It was a mistake. On the information we had, we shouldn’t have prosecuted the war. We shouldn’t have changed our argument from international law to regime change in a non-transparent way. It was an error for which we as a country paid a heavy price, and for which many people paid with their lives. Saddam Hussein was a horrible man, and I am pleased he is no longer running Iraq. But the war was wrong.”

The Hill of Pressure

Ralph Miliband’s corpse is revolving at high speed.

At the Iraq Inquiry today, hapless Foreign Secretary David Miliband defended the invasion on that little known international law of nursery rhymes. Like a demented grand old Duke of York, Miliband explained that it would do to be seen to have “marched to the top of the hill of pressure” and then to march back down again.

Meanwhile, Armando Iannucci must be more than a little amused to witness Miliband auditioning as a comic actor for any future Iannucci projects.

In the superb film “In the Loop”, the hapless Minister for International Development Simon Foster remarks that for peace to prevail sometimes it is necessary to “climb the mountain of conflict.”

David Miliband may sense his political future is over and is looking for a new career in comedy. He should go far. After all, his whole political career has been just about the funniest thing modern British history has witnessed. If Ed Miliband should see fit to join him, the long search for the new Laurel and Hardy of comedy will at last be over.